Am 05.02.2015 um 13:30 schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:03:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've
spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say
that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update
Matthew Miller wrote:
Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for)
online updates for Firefox:
Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the
old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511
We do not care about Flash. It is not in
On 05/02/15 14:21, Casey Jao wrote:
Ignoring the fact that Flash player is not updated by the system package
manager, Flash player is an example of a non-leaf package whose updates
could affect other applications.
But in this case, it would seem much less disruptive to prompt the user
to
On 02/05/2015 04:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Here's a good example of problems with (the current approach for)
online updates for Firefox:
Flash plugin up to date but Firefox keeps telling me that I have the
old version: http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/174210/2511
Ignoring the
On 02/04/2015 06:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:00 -0800, Casey Jao wrote:
I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is
likely to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But
on slower moving distros where systems components rarely
On 02/05/2015 08:25 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
The problem is that you also have to delete pluginreg.dat from the firefox
profile directory, or firefox will continue to think you have the old flash
installed even after you restart it.
It's basically because the plugin is being updated by yum behind
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:03:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
update, not your broader one. I am happy to defer to those who've
spent more time dealing with it than me - i.e. hughsie - when they say
that, no, it isn't really 'safe' to update your web browser online.
(I'm equally happy to
From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-
boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Kofler
We do not care about Flash. It is not in Fedora. It is not even Free
Software.
It's not dead enough. Only when someone asks, Do you mean lack of clothing,
memory card
On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:00 -0800, Casey Jao wrote:
I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is
likely to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But
on slower moving distros where systems components rarely get more
than security updates, browsers might
I understand where you are coming from and that a fedora user is likely
to see frequent updates of lots of other packages anyway. But on slower
moving distros where systems components rarely get more than security
updates, browsers might be one of the more frequently updated pieces of
software.
On 02/03/2015 07:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not
require a total
system reboot to be updated?
Yes, see
On 02/02/2015 04:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a
total
system reboot to be updated?
Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically,
you
On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 10:50 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not
require a total
system reboot to be updated?
Yes, see
On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 05:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Richard Hughes wrote:
Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps --
basically, you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app
deployments without a reboot in a safe way.
That's absolute nonsense. Updating had
On 02/01/2015 04:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to
restart (and not the needs-restarting command
was never relieable here)
dnf install dnf-plugin-tracer
To clarify, I know that one can bypass the restart prompt by using dnf on
the command line. But my concerns pertained to the average user, who is
likely not familiar with the command line. And the average user when asked
to restart for *everything* (such as a browser update) might grow
Am 02.02.2015 um 11:50 schrieb Miroslav Suchý:
On 02/01/2015 04:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr will show you processes you may conisder to
restart (and not the needs-restarting command
was never relieable here)
dnf install dnf-plugin-tracer
Richard Hughes wrote:
Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically,
you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app deployments
without a reboot in a safe way.
That's absolute nonsense. Updating had always worked that way before you
changed to offline updates. It
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a
total
system reboot to be updated?
Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically,
you can't do updates of rpm-sourced
On 31 January 2015 at 21:57, Casey Jao casey@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a total
system reboot to be updated?
Yes, see https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps -- basically,
you can't do updates of rpm-sourced system-wide app
Am 31.01.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Casey Jao:
Warning: long post ahead.
Are there any plans to let packages specify that they do not require a
total system reboot to be updated?
The other day, Gnome software prompted me to reboot just to update
google chrome. Given that nothing depends on chrome,
21 matches
Mail list logo
